"Rhetorical Pdagogy"

Iam finding that rhetoric is all over the place…literally. But it's not just the definition of rhetoric that is all over the place - it's the actual disciplinary practice of it that is sprawled everywhere. After I finished reading, Rhetorical Pedagogy, by William Covino, I felt exasperated by all of the definitions and theories. Though, there were two “modern masters” during the twentieth-century that impacted my thoughts on rhetoric; Kenneth Burke and Kennedy.
Burke defiines rhetoric as, “the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols, thus revealing his essential and ongoing interest in the associational uses of language, for bringing together disparate or incongruous ideas, and for promoting the identification of different individuals and groups with one another” (45). Burke’s theory, dramatism, is simplistic and realistic for anyone. Dramatism is broken down into two parts: action and motion. Action is something that people do on purpose in way of their voluntary behavior. Motions are behaviors that are non-purposeful and non-meaningful. Actions deal with the basic forms of thought. While, motives are the way people understand events and the suggestions for response inherent to the dialogue that it presents for its audience. In order for motives to be understood further, Burke presents what is knows as the Pentad. Basically, the Pentad is: who, when, where, why and how. This can be applied to just about anything that happens in the world. I found that the Pentad was very easy to understand and I really believe that one could apply it to a very simple scenario or to a more complex one. I believe that Burke’s dramatism works well because it is organized and easily understood.
I connected with Kennedy’s theory mainly from a quote by him in Rhetorical Pedagogy. “Rhetoric is the most general sense may perhaps be identified with the energy inherent in communication: the emotional energy that impels the speaker to speak, the physical energy expended in the utterance, the energy level coded in the message, and the energy experienced by the recipient in decoding the message” (48). I strongly feel that emotion plays a huge part in both the speaker and the recipient. Emotion and energy is what makes writing great. It is what seperates the good from the bad. Kennedy is acknowledging that there has to be a connection between the writer and the reader. Again, the simplicity of Kennedy’s theory fascinated me. It is very easily understood which helps the not so devoted reader understand the meaning of rhetoric. ; )